Callaway v. State
251 Ga. App. 11, 553 S.E.2d 314, 2001 Fulton County D. Rep. 2497 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The denial of a motion to dismiss based on a defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial is an interlocutory order, not a final judgment, and therefore is not subject to direct appeal before the conclusion of the trial.
Facts:
- Dextrell Callaway was a defendant in a criminal proceeding awaiting trial.
- A significant delay occurred between the time Callaway was charged and his scheduled trial date.
- Callaway believed this delay constituted a violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial.
- Based on this alleged violation, Callaway sought to have the charges against him dismissed prior to the commencement of his trial.
Procedural Posture:
- Dextrell Callaway filed a plea in bar and demand for acquittal in the trial court, arguing his constitutional right to a speedy trial had been violated.
- The trial court denied Callaway's motion.
- Callaway filed a direct appeal of the trial court's pre-trial order to the Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court's pre-trial order denying a defendant's motion to dismiss on constitutional speedy trial grounds fall under the collateral order exception to the final judgment rule, thereby making it directly appealable?
Opinions:
Majority - Eldridge, Judge
No. The denial of a motion to dismiss on constitutional speedy trial grounds is not directly appealable before a final judgment because it does not fall under the collateral order exception. The court distinguished between a speedy trial claim based on a specific statute (like OCGA § 17-7-170), which provides for automatic acquittal and is analogous to a double jeopardy claim's 'right not to be tried,' and a constitutional speedy trial claim. A constitutional claim, analyzed under Barker v. Wingo, does not grant a 'right not to be tried,' but rather protects against the pre-trial delay itself. Citing United States v. MacDonald, the court found that such a denial is not a final rejection of the defendant's claim, is best considered after facts are developed at trial, and can be effectively reviewed on appeal following a potential conviction. Therefore, it fails the collateral order test and the proper avenue for pre-trial review is the discretionary interlocutory appeal process.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the final judgment rule in Georgia criminal procedure by narrowing the scope of the collateral order exception. It establishes a critical distinction between statutory speedy trial rights, which can be immediately appealed upon denial because they function like an acquittal, and constitutional speedy trial rights, which cannot. This holding prevents defendants from using constitutional speedy trial motions as a tool for automatic, pre-trial appellate delay and clarifies that such claims must either wait for a post-conviction appeal or be granted discretionary review through the interlocutory application process.
Unlock the full brief for Callaway v. State